By Adrian Ille
In February of 2026, I took the Illinois Bar Exam to become a licensed attorney. I found out I passed on April 3, 2026. A little over a month later, I found myself working as an associate at the firm Mauck & Baker, LLC. Mauck & Baker is known for its work with religious clients, including not-for-profit organizations, individuals, and churches, and the firm is not shy about taking on difficult matters to defend their rights.
My expectations for what a newly licensed litigation attorney would be asked to do revolved around basic legal research and perhaps writing a brief or two—the typical work of a first-year associate. Instead, I quickly found myself in a dispute with an unexpected setting: the Village of Dolton, which had recently attracted national attention under former Mayor Tiffany Henyard, and the home of Mrs. Donna Sajna Davis, located beside the childhood home of Pope Leo XIV.
In 2025, the Dolton Village Board of Trustees voted to purchase the property following the election of Robert Francis Prevost to Pope Leo. The home was secured for $375,000 and was subsequently turned into a historical landmark and tourist attraction.
Mrs. Davis has worked as a substitute teacher in the Chicago Public Schools for more than 20 years. She and her husband, Mr. Kareem Davis, a retired U.S. Army officer, were delighted to learn that the house next door had been the childhood home of Pope Leo XIV. As Christians committed to sharing the Gospel, the Davises saw the influx of visitors as an opportunity to serve. Their unusual location placed them in a position to welcome pilgrims from around the world, and they chose to embrace that opportunity.
In furtherance of their ministry, Mrs. Davis and her husband began to provide free water, Bibles, and even a Porta Potty to accommodate the visitors (who often came by the busload). They created a prayer request box, participated in worship services, and welcomed the community with a smile and a consistently positive attitude.
Mrs. Davis conducts her ministry modestly. A small Bluetooth speaker sits on her windowsill facing the Pope’s former home, playing gospel music and sermons at a volume that, during my visit, did not appear to carry beyond the front of her yard. Nevertheless, the Village cited her for the speaker and raised concerns about other conditions at the property, including the portable toilet. From Mrs. Davis’s perspective, the citations threatened both her ministry and her ability to express her faith from her own home.
Within a span of barely twenty-four hours, the City issued four citations totaling $950.00:
May 6, 2026, at 2:02 PM:
- violation 6-6-9, excessive noise ($750.00)
May 7, 2026 at 10:40 AM, Mrs. Davis received three more violations:
- 7-4-2A-1, failure to trim overhanging branches ($50.00)
- PM-304.11D, failure to repair window screen ($50.00)
- PM-302.1, failure to maintain premises in clean, safe, and sanitary condition ($100.00)
I visited the property myself, curious as to what condition attracted $950.00 in fines from City Hall. What I found was a home clean, tidy, and welcoming, precisely what could be expected from a home ready to minister to the multitudes.
On July 16, 2026, at 1:00 p.m., I appeared before the ordinance-violation hearing officer. Although the docket involved familiar subjects such as branches and window screens, I believed the noise citation implicated broader First Amendment concerns. I argued that Mrs. Davis’s speaker, which played gospel music and sermons, constituted religious expression entitled to substantial constitutional protection.
I argued that the Village’s action burdened religious expression and therefore warranted careful constitutional scrutiny. In my view, restricting hymns played at a volume that could not be heard beyond the property did not advance a sufficient governmental interest in a sufficiently tailored manner.
The case, at its core, raised a stranger question than any single ordinance could answer: whether a private home becomes subject to a different, more exacting standard of municipal control simply because it happens to sit beside a newly famous address. Dolton’s conduct throughout suggested as much, as though proximity to the Pope’s childhood home had converted the Davis property into a kind of quasi-public nuisance requiring correction. But a homeowner’s rights, to speak, to worship, to maintain her property according to her own judgment, do not diminish because a neighbor’s home has drawn national attention. If anything, the City’s four citations in twenty-seven hours illustrated the opposite risk: that once a property draws scrutiny, municipal authority can be turned into a tool for controlling conduct the City would otherwise have no occasion to police at all.
By the noise citation, on its own, the City could not survive even a cursory reading of the ordinance. Section 6-6-9 appears within Dolton’s vehicular code and addresses noise associated with motor vehicles, not a speaker resting on a residential windowsill. The amount of the citation raised an additional concern: the ordinance, as I read it, authorized a maximum penalty of $500.00, a ceiling reserved for the worst offenders- the sort who are blasting profanity at a volume meant to rattle windows and disturb neighbors. This is quite different than that of a woman playing hymns so softly they cannot be heard past her own yard. Yet, somehow, Mrs. Davis was assessed $750. These discrepancies strengthened our position that the citation should not stand and illustrated why careful review of even a seemingly routine municipal charge matters.
I expected this argument to end the matter. To my genuine surprise, rather than dismiss the citation, the hearing officer himself recast it as a common-law nuisance. Naturally, I pushed back. A nuisance charge requires a prior written warning, and Mrs. Davis had received none. I pressed further, noting that four citations levied against one family within twenty-seven hours, carrying fines so wildly out of proportion to the alleged offenses, bore a closer resemblance to intimidation and targeting than to code enforcement. Not a single neighbor, after all, had ever complained.
The hearing officer acknowledged that a $750 fine appeared disproportionate to the alleged conduct. Nevertheless, he did not dismiss the matter. Instead, he imposed a $150 fine based on the speaker’s use. For Mrs. Davis and for me, the result underscored the difference between recognizing that a penalty is excessive and providing the full relief the circumstances warrant.
When I renewed our objection, the hearing officer declined to alter his ruling. He advised that, if Mrs. Davis wished to challenge the outcome further, her remedy was an appeal to the circuit court.
The two $50.00 property-maintenance citations, for the overhanging branches and the window screen, were dismissed outright. The citation for failing to maintain the premises in a clean, safe, and sanitary condition was reduced to $50.00. In total, the Davises were left owing $200.00: $150.00 on the noise citation and $50.00 on the sanitary-maintenance citation.
I took away many lessons from this case. I learned that there is no such thing as a “slam dunk” in the legal world. I also learned that the need for Christian attorneys couldn’t be more important in today’s world. In the words of Proverbs 31:8, we have a responsibility to “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute.” I am grateful to have had the opportunity to stand as a voice for those sharing the Good News, and feel excited about being a force against government overreach.
If you would like to see the story CBS news did on the topic, and watch my first go at an interview with a reporter, you can use the link below.
https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/neighbor-of-pope-leos-childhood-home-cited-for-noise-dolton
-Adrian Ille
